[MD] dualism redux

[skutvik at online.no]

Kevin and Horse.

On 27 Feb. Kevin quoted Horse's:

> > So what you're saying basically boils down to:
> > 1) Intellectual patterns of value are Dualistic
> > 2) The Metaphysics of Quality is an Intellectual pattern of value so
> > 3) The Metaphysics of Quality is Dualistic
> > Is this about right?
 
I think Horse's first point is right - both as a summary of Kevin's 
and MOQ-wise. The second point is correct in the sense that the 
Quality Idea started a SOM idea, but because it couldn't be 
contained by SOM it no longer is an intellectual pattern, rather 
SOM as intellect became a Quality pattern. Regarding the 3rd. 
point see below.

Kevin went on:
> What is or is not dualistic is the approach to reality. A dualistic
> approach sees reality as an object "out there" and separate from
> oneself. 

>From SOM seen existence is so divided and will remain so till 
kingdom comes. From these premises the subject/object see-saw 
has since alternated "All is just mind", "Mind is just ..."     

> The Metaphysics of Quality is like this.

The MOQ is N-O-T like this. Ought not be at least, but to my grief 
Pirsig himself - as a second thought almost - realized that the 
MOQ was "man-made" and nullified his own great achievement. 
This is too big an issue to sort out here, so enough for now. 

> Platt recently mentioned Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind.
> In it Penrose wrote about brains in vats.  I can't remember the
> conclusion Penrose arrived at but I do remember the questions.
> Could an appropriately connected brain distinguish its brain-in-vat
> reality from the reality it perceived from its electro-chemical
> connections?  Could a brain in a vat know it was a brain in a vat?

This is the SOM-induced "mind-from-biological-brain" chimera, 
but a disconnected mind (consciousness)  - disembodied or not - 
will never "materialize" because there is neither mind nor matter 
in the MOQ. The subject/object aggregate exists only at the 
intellectual level ... IS the intellectual level.       

> For me, these questions get to the root of what I believe about
> reality.  I believe interaction is everything.

Interaction between what?
 
> We can approach reality dualistically like a brain in a vat and
> realize limited interaction and separateness from reality.  Or we can
> approach reality non-dualistically and realize abundant interaction
> and oneness with reality.  My experience is we all do both and that
> most people, including myself, spend most of thier lives like brains
> in vats.

This looks more promising, at least Kevin sees it possible to 
transcend SOM but then he proceeds down "oneness" dead end, 
as if the sole alternative to S/O-dualism is monism. Why not the 
better dualism where the "Brain in Vat" view becomes a 
VALUABLE yet limited outlook?  

Bo